On those mornings, we’re writing and editing stories that we’ve been working on for days or
weeks to pull together for
www.Dispatch.com and print on Saturday, Sunday and Monday
(not including the inevitable breaking news).

This past Friday was particularly excruciating.

On the third page of the late edition of that morning’s Sports section was a headline that
caused heartburn and embarrassment.

In an effort to squeeze into print the story about the Denver Broncos-Baltimore Ravens game
before our final deadline, a copy editor made two mistakes — one in bold type in a headline, the
other in the second paragraph.

Peyton Manning, the future Hall of Fame quarterback for the Broncos, had a record-setting night,
throwing seven touchdown passes. His achievement led the Broncos to a 49-27 win.

The wire services didn’t move a complete story fast enough to meet our 1 a.m. deadline, so the
copy editor put together a story at 12:56 a.m. using earlier versions and what he witnessed on TV.
In his quest to get the story to readers, he hastily changed “The Denver Broncos quarterback” in
the second paragraph to “Elway,” because there was already a first reference to the team’s full
name.

Elway, of course, is John Elway, the former quarterback for the Broncos who retired in 1999 and
is now its executive vice president.

Making matters worse, the headline gave credit for the historic performance to Elway, not
Manning.

With social media, the mistake quickly became an Internet sensation. We received calls for
interviews from ESPN and a Denver TV station. What could I say, other than that someone made a
mistake on deadline?

While we despise mistakes, in the grand scheme of things, this error wasn’t significant. The
only real harm it caused was to us. We didn’t wrongly name a person who was indicted or declare
someone dead who is alive.

While I understand the attention, it’s disappointing that so much of it was paid to that
headline, because our copy editors generally do a very good job. They always try to get the latest
news in the paper. And that noble goal of getting the latest news in Sports was a factor in this
mistake. That’s not an excuse. The goal is to get it in
and get it correct.

That happens more often than not, and virtually always without fanfare. A week ago, for example,
the Columbus Crew game started about 90 minutes late because of lightning. The game ended at 11:04
p.m., giving reporter Adam Jardy and the copy editors 11 minutes to make deadline. An editor asked
for a little extra time but was told by a senior editor that there would be no extra time. We
needed to make sure papers got out on time.

The story was written, edited and the headline crafted in time for all editions. That’s the
standard, and we’re proud of how often we achieve it for the benefit of our readers.

I regret that we missed it on the Broncos-Ravens game.

Last week, I shared a debate we had about how far we should go in conveying obscene words in
quotations.

It’s clear from your responses that you agree with our policy of not publishing the obscenity
unless it’s absolutely necessary. You also prefer that we give a small hint to the obscenity so
that you understand what was said without having to see the word in print.

Cindy Bender wrote: “I would like to see the paper continue to avoid those words in print,
regardless of who said them. I like the use of the first letter, with dashes. It really
doesn’t matter to me, though, if you use the word ‘expletive’; I just do not want to see the full
word in print.

“I really wish these words were not so prevalent in our society. I wish people would
realize that it does not help make their point, and instead reflects poorly on their ability to
communicate. Thank you for caring enough to ask your readers, though I suspect that many will
respond that it doesn’t bother them to see those words in print. Are there no boundaries
anymore?”

Wrote Wesley Smith: “I much prefer the use of a clue over none, because when we see a blank spot
in the middle of a sentence, our brains want to fill that blank to understand the sentence. Most,
if not all people will understand which word fills that blank. I understand the need for
discretion, but to obfuscate the word is no help to anyone.”